Exclusive: Rand Paul's accuser clarifies "kidnapping"

The woman who sparked a national firestorm by recounting Rand Paul's
youthful indiscretions to GQ magazine is now clarifying her account: She says she was not kidnapped nor forced to do drugs by Paul.

But she reiterated other odd aspects of her earlier story, including her claim that Paul and another college friend blindfolded her, tied her up, and told her to smoke pot and worship the "Aqua Buddha," even if they didn't physically force her to do these things.

The woman -- who was made available to me for an interview by GQ reporter Jason Zengerle in response to the Paul campaign's denunciations of his article -- said she didn't mean to imply that she was kidnapped "in a legal sense."

"The whole thing has been blown out of proportion," she told me. "They didn't force me, they didn't make me. They were creating this drama: `We're messing with you.'"

The woman said that much of the subsequent coverage of her allegations missed a key nuance: As a participant in a college ritual, where lines between acquiescence and victimization are often blurry, she was largely playing along with the notion that she was being forced to follow Paul's orders.

"I went along because they were my friends," she said. "There was an implicit degree of cooperation in the whole thing. I felt like I was being hazed."

That characterization of events supports Paul's claim that, as he told Fox News yesterday, "No, I never was involved with kidnapping. No, I never was involved with forcibly drugging people."

But in her conversation with me, the woman stood by the general outline of her earlier account.

"[They] came over to my house as friends that I knew," she told me. "They immediately said, `We're going to tie you up and go for a ride.'"

She reiterated that they took her to a room filled with pot smoke and told her to partake, but she emphasized that she hadn't been forced. "He did not drug me," she said. "He did not force me physically in any way."

She said they then "took me out to this creek and made me worship Aqua Buddha." And she added that the whole thing was so "weird" that afterwards she ended relations with Paul and his friends.

Though the GQ piece never used the word "kidnapping," (and quoted her saying the whole thing was a "joke"), subsequent media coverage has characterized the allegations this way, seemingly allowing Paul to keep the conversation focused on this one charge. He hasn't responded to questions about the blindfolding or the Aqua Buddha.

And in response to this latest round of allegations, the Paul campaign claimed vindication about the "kidnapping" while again declining to directly address the lurid charges about the prank.

"It is satisfying to see the libelous and grossly irresponsible charges of kidnapping completely shot down," Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton emailed. "It remains puzzling to us why the drive-by media continues to focus on an alleged 30 year old teenage prank when our nation faces high unemployment, a thirteen trillion dollar debt and are threatened with a Cap and Trade national energy tax."

Paul has also tried to discount the woman's claims as coming from "one anonymous source."

In our conversation, she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger.

"In our conversation, she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

tells us a whole different story, doesn't it ? Did randy & his boyz get to her ?

They took her to a room filled with pot smoke and told her to partake. She wasn't "forcibly drugged" (i.e., had something slipped into her drink or shot up) but it sounds like she did partake. Sure we knew Rand was a libertarian, but did we know he smoked pot in college? Does it still have any stigma?

"Bong hits from the aqua Buddah" is the single best thing the recommend Rand Paul. Unfortunately, that isn't what he's been running on.

"In our conversation, she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

I dunno. I think that's kind of lame. But maybe. Still, Rand could have clarified that when he was first "denying" that it ever happened--look, I we were in college, it was hazing, it was, uh, medicinal marijuana, which as a libertarian I support the legalization of, by the way, and she was really hot--back then, I mean--so, you know, boys will be boys."

As it is, Rand comes off as ham-handedly trying to frame the situation, when he clearly knows who the anonymous source is and knows what happens, and could have clarified to begin with, but chose not to.

I don't see how Rand wins this thing. I really don't. But, ya never know. Democrats aren't going to run Coakley against him, are they?

Kudos Greg. To be honest this is exactly what I thought happened to begin with. I assumed they didn't kidnap her in a literal or legal sense it was nothing more than good ole fashioned hazing. I'm also not a huge fan of hazing...Tim Tebow doesn't look good as a monk if you've seen his pic since his Bronco teammates "forced" him to let them cut his hair. Same thing except pot is involved.

As someone who was born and raised in Kentucky I am absolutely ashamed of my former home state in their choice of politicians. I am no fan of Ayn Rand Paul...

HOWEVER...this incident in Paul's life bothers me NOT! I don't think it reflects on his personal or political views as an ADULT. It is a bit of dig for dirt until you find some...remember the crap about Obama when he was five or something.

And so I'll back my liberterian/tparty brethren on this one...it's really a story that rises to the level of whether or not Clinton inhaled.

I am a 62 year old Vietnam Vet who survived the sixties. If I meet someone my age and they HAVEN'T experimented with pot then I know they haven't been to Vietnam or College...no not EVERYONE smoked dope in 'Nam or school...but the vast majority certainly tried. BFD!!!

If Ayn Rand Paul were a current pot smoker perhaps something to consider...but I'm not worried about that...No it's he and his father's desire to bring the U.S. back literally more than a century of evolution of compassion and creating a fair and equitable society...post WWII we had that until the past 30 years beginning with Reagan's Voodoo economics.

Paul and his ilk would have us return to the days of Deadwood where we have mininmal Law enforcement...and it was every man for himself. Eff with me and I simply draw down on you or perhaps more historically accurate...I sneak around some corner and shoot you in the back.

Act I: Its 1980 Rand Paul is acting like John Belushi in animal house and the crazy conservative college administrators are running after him, playing detective and trying to get him expelled. Act II: The 2010 stick-in-the-mud writers at GQ and WP discover Rand Paul had more fun than them in college so they go out of their mind with jealousy, put on the hats of the college killjoy administrators they themselves fought against in their youth and try once more to get Rand Paul expelled for college pranks. Good movie.

I believe Keith Olbermann was part of Sigma Pi at Cornell. My freshman year at Cornell, the Sigma Pi pledges ran naked through my all-girl floor at Baker Hall. They also attached a live chicken to the hockey net at a the Harvard-Cornell Hockey game, causing great emotional and physical harm to the chicken.

Liberals -- remember, your college stunts are also under scrutiny. Can we really go into what Jerry Brown and Barack Obama did in college?

Rand Paul is looking more slimed than Shirley "one of your own" Sherrod.

@schrodinger: "What's the big deal? Quite honestly, I like Paul now a lot more than I did before the story broke."

I would have liked Paul a lot more if his response to the story had been, "Oh, yeah. Aqua buddah! Man, that was awesome. No, no, we didn't 'kidnap' anybody. But I'm going to be honest with you. We were all really effed up that night."

Instead, he tried to "not lie" his way out of it. Technically honest, but practically (and pointlessly) duplicitous. Regarding the clinical psychologist's tacit (and implied) admission that she looks down on, and fears, her patients, I do tend to think that's more telling about her than Tea Partiers or our military men and women. IMHO.

A pretty good depiction of the serious generational rift in the Republican Party of the 21st century. If this only gets played up on the web, it's good for Paul because it shows his cynical, good ol' boy, libertarian anything goes approach. If this information migrates to older voters, it's political dynamite. Rand Paul does not represent well the institution of the Senate or the best traditions of Kentucky Republican voters. So, that is bound to be troubling.

This is EXACTLY what I said happened in a comment about the earlier story about "kidnapping" "Aqua Budda", etc. I was attacked by another panty-waist liberal for being insensitive to the "forcible kidnapping of a young college girl".

Look yourselves in the mirror, liberals, and ask yourselves what kind of people you are for posting the kinds of things you did about Rand Paul based on some silly anonymous story about a college pot-smoking prank. Just because you disagree with his politics. You are not the nice people you believe you are.

Cornell 1984 Cornell is a great school with a wonderful academic reputation.

However you have completely posted a false comparison. Keith Olbmermann is a PRIVATE citizen who is NOT running for office.

If he flashed you in school and you were offended...or if hearing he ever did such a thing you are free to turn the channel..although I suspect your channel selector rarely winds up on MSNBC at 8PM anyway.

Ayn Rand Paul is running for one of the highest positions in our nation's government...to become one of that elite 100 who are then free like Nelson and Lieberman and Bayh to take millions from the Corporatists.

I actually believe Paul probably would less likely to be susceptible to the money grubbing corporatists (IMHO) but regardless I simply do not wish to see my country return to the early 19th Century.
I want our country to move forward not backwards...but then I guess that is the defining difference between being a "progressive" person and a conservative one.

I still don't really care about this story, though. There's a multitude of reasons to keep Paul out of the Senate...something that happened 20 years ago in College really doesn't even move the needle for me.

Anyone who was ever young, had friends and had a life knew from the original article she was never "kidnapped." As in forced against her will. The point of the article (in context that the incident occurred at Baylor) was that Rand Paul, at least as a young man, did not pay homage to organized religion. Something you'd normally consider to be a conversation stopper among a large subset of Republicans.

So she's saying that she doesn't want her name in print "because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

She's basically saying that there are some very unbalanced ex-military who have joined the Tea Party and she's afraid they'll come after her violently if she criticizes Rand Paul.

That makes sense, actually. If she's got to treat ex-military who have joined the Tea Party, she's got very good reason to be scared.

@pyellman Wow nothing like sweeping gratuitous swipes at ENTIRE groups of people.
I made that mistake yesterday about R's...Kevin called me on it..and Kevin was right. Sweeping generalations rarely hold up.

"Look yourselves in the mirror, liberals,You are not the nice people you believe you are."

Damn all those people who have said I'm a nice guy must be full of manure eh?

So, in America, a woman is afraid to identify herself because she fears the fake Tea Party will kill her for speaking the truth about a politician.

Wonder why she fears that?

Posted by: frank1569 | August 11, 2010 2:35 PM

...................

I am not sure if she meant danger of losing her job, or actual danger from patients that she is treating for PTS. Some of the people who suffer from severe PTS can be volatile and even harm members of their own families.

She would know best. As a liberal, I wish she had not bothered talking to the Magazine, in the first place; especially since it is just a personal anecdote about a silly college escapade that she got drawn into; if she is even recalling the incident correctly.

I am surprised that the Editor of the Mag. thought that it was a story worth printing.

How's this for an idea. Hopefully everyone has heard of the group "Just say now". Actually not a group but a movement with many groups including FDL and others joining together to campaign for the legalization of marijuana.

While the "kidnapping" part of this story is described as "hyperbole" nobody has yet denied "aqua Buddha" or smoking pot. Perhaps Jane can see her way to endorsing Paul if he will come out and endorse the legalization. Talk about politics producing odd bedfellows. If Ayn Rand Paul is TRULY a liberterian and followed his conscience he'd have to endorse "Just Say Now" if he hopes to have a shred of consistency in his views.

@GREG What has happened to TENA? How are we supposed to debate a major pot event without her wise perspective? Seriously we miss her is she in hiding in N.M.

Hey everyone get off Paul's back. Tying up women and forcing them to take drugs is ok if it's done by private citizens....just like institutional racism is ok so long as it isn't government doing the oppressing.

@rukidding:"Damn all those people who have said I'm a nice guy must be full of manure eh? Nothing like broad sweeping generalizations to make a point. NOT!!!!"

Agreed. Telling people they are stupid, blatantly dishonest, shills for whoever, blindly obedient, brain-washed or programmed, "not ice people", etc., doesn't communicate. I can't imagine most of those people feel like they've been in a dialog, if someone talks to them like that. So, I often wonder what the point is, except a kind of a shorthand to friends (real or imagined) who might be watching them: "See, I think these people are stupid/evil/ignorant/not nice, too. Isn't it great that we're all in the same cool kids club?" ;)

@Kevin: "I would have liked Paul a lot more if his response to the story had been, "Oh, yeah. Aqua buddah! Man, that was awesome. No, no, we didn't 'kidnap' anybody. But I'm going to be honest with you. We were all really effed up that night."

Oh, I definitely agree.....but there's just no way his handlers from the RNC would've allowed that. Maybe a few months ago before the Maddow appearance debacle he would've been more honest.

I have yet to meet or know of a liberal who does not (1) believe that he/she is, by mere dint of calling him/herself liberal/progressive, the "nice" or "good" person in any debate or discussion with someone from a different part of the political spectrum, and (2) assume that this difference imbues his/her opinions with greater righteousness, legitimacy, etc. The only comparison that fits is with religious fundamentalists.

Did you say anything to anyone to point out how ridiculous and snakeskunk-in-the-gutter-low this attack on Rand Paul was? Would you have if the target had been one of your liberal politicians?

Again kudos for you and your academic prowess if you attended Cornell for any significant length of time. I've only had one acquaintance a co-worker who was a proud "Big Red" grad and she was incredibly bright and gifted. In light of the fact that I therefore hold your academic background in high regard your last post shocked me....!!!

"I have yet to meet or know of a liberal who does not (1) believe that he/she is, by mere dint of calling him/herself liberal/progressive, the "nice" or "good" person in any debate or discussion with someone from a different part of the political spectrum, and (2) assume that this difference imbues his/her opinions with greater righteousness, legitimacy, etc. The only comparison that fits is with religious fundamentalists."

WOW! Well if it helps you've met one now.
I am a liberal/progressive communist pinko bed wetter, socialist, marxist, and I certainly do not think I'm nicer than you.
In fact I can't even disagree with your last post. I can only extend my deepest condolences on what sounds like a personal problem.

YET to to meet or know of...well now you know at least one and I hope you can get out a little more because as a Cornell student/grad? you must realize that you post is actually quite meaningless and by resorting to your own hyperbole you have negated the entire point.

Unless it's your contention that what you are saying is literally true(in which case we need to see your documention with links please)...or perhaps you'd simply like to cop to a little snark.

I think one of the more ridiculous perspectives on this story is that it is an "attack" on Paul. It is simply an anecdote included in an extensive story
about a Senate candidate.\

I also agree with Kevin Willis that for those of us that attended college in the 80's, the story is neither surprising nor damaging but Paul's duplicitous response is both stupid and indicative of his lack of character.

THe guy is a whack job, no doubt, but this story is not evidence of his otherwise clear unfittness to be a United States Senator.

Come on, people. This woman is making the whole thing up. Remember the chick who was gangraped by those athletes at the University of North Carolina? It turns out she lied like a rug and the district attorney lost his license and his job. The kids were completely exonerated, but until that time no one stuck up for them other than their parents. The university didn't, no one did. The news media no longer checks stories for accuracy or truth. They just want to throw cr@p up in the air. Of course, they scream bloody murder when it happens to them. The woman who started this garbage should be tarred and feathered. It's nothing more than a publicity stunt to sabotage Paul's campaign.

BTW pyellman I actually like Ayn Rand Paul.
Perhaps I should drop the Ayn part...I confess to picking up on Kevin's snark..but actually I do like him well enough personally and if you read my first post you'd see that I did point out how stupid this story was.

Now here is your challenge pyellman. Open your mind! Scroll this topic again and see how many self identified liberals have DEFENDED Paul in this instance. Now go to Red State and see how many people said that going bonkers over Michelle Obama's vacation might have been a little over the top...or that Rush playing Barack the Magic Negro over and over again just might indicate a bit of racism. If you are honest and join us on a regular basis you'll see us all over the board.

In closing if it makes you feel better to confess that the left has it wacko's too...absolutely...if it makes you feel better for us to say that we too sometimes get too sweeping or personal in our attacks...YES..mea culpa...but we do have Kevin W here to police we commies when we get out of hand. He has earned our respect and so when he busted me for a sweeping generalization yesterday I was more than happy to agree with him..I was wrong.

"..she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

Could we take this out of the realm of the personal attacks and look at policy for just one minute here...

Teabaggers let's look at the policies and see where we agree.

Foreign policy. I LOVE Rand Paul. Are you with me there? Teabaggers are you ready for a unilateral pullout from both Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you ready to bring the troops home. Talk about balancing the budget and cutting taxes..simply follow BOTH of the Paul's plans to stop our imperial empire building.
Are you with us there Teabaggers?

Drugs - Paul is a liberterian..liberterians believe in legalization? Yeah me too. How about you Teabaggers?

Domestic policy...Yowwwh...no can't agree here..I don't want to return our country to the brutish savage nation that saw child workers in NYC sweat shops, and I don't wish to go back to Deadwood S.D. where there was very little regulation and people HAD to carry firearms to protect themselves. Ironically this may be the one area where you teabaggers really support Paul.

Religion in politics...I'm with Paul here as well...as a libertarian I can assure you
that his view of religion in the public sphere is 180 degrees the polar opposite of Sister Sarah and the Religious Right. Are you still with Rand Tea partiers.

Great...then we just reviewed issues without calling Candidate Paul or each other stupid meaningless names.

@suekzoo Here here! Where do we all get to line up for a toke. Because as pyellman can tell you we ALL think we're superior and since we're going to lump ourselves into these pigeonholes let's be honest...if we're progressive we MUST be potheads right? LMAO

Btw..I also love the poster who pointed out what a great Cheech and Chong movie we have going for us here.

"...she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

She changed her story so she wouldn't get whacked by the insane right-wing TeaBallers? Unbelievable. What's this country coming to?

I think most voters in KY won't pay a whole lot of mind to Paul's 20-year-old prank, whether you think it's creepy and sadistic or coming-of-age harmless fun. People will judge Paul, though, on his stated beliefs today. Among them: repeal portions of the civil rights act; abolish the Department of Agriculture (I assume that includes the farming subsidies some of his family members receive); allow private businesses to discriminate; do away with certain provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act; allow coal mining companies to police themselves. A member of the fringe element and irrational? A clear-eyed truth teller?

So she's essentially just disavowing the semantics of the original story. She wasn't "kidnapped" so much as somehow coerced into letting a couple friends blindfold her, tie her up, take her out of her home, and drive her off into the woods. And she wasn't "forced" to smoke pot, she was just taken into a smoke-filled room, blindfolded, and commanded to partake. And the whole experience was so weird and disturbing to her that she immediately ended the friendships. Other than that, it was just good, clean fun. Woo-hoooo!

I tend to agree with the folks who don't think that this hurts him, they actually kind of like him more because of it and would never consider voting for him because they don't want to turn the country into Somalia.
I also tend to agree with the psychiatrist that many of the Tea Party nation are a couple fries short of a happy meal,
just sayin'.....

I am no Paul fan, he's too libertarian for my conservative tastes, but he's going to win. A lot of the things listed here that he supports are popular in KY. Eliminating entire segments of the federal government are now very popular and becoming more so. He's actually ahead of the curve here.

Couple that with the Democrats running a Nancy Pelosi robot against him, and it's certain the GOP will keep Bunning's seat.

"Actually it says more about paranoid clinical psychologist than Tea Party members. This woman wanted her fifteen minutes of fame and she is a nut case. Give me a break."

Ummm. These are people who bring assault weapons to parades and hold signs like, "if Scott Brown can't stop this, then a Browning can." A father/son pair of "patriots" just went down in a hail of gun fire last week. Some oathers attempted to take over, by force, a courthouse in Tennessee. More than a few policemen have been shot and killed by people afraid that Obama was coming for their guns. In Arizona and Florida at least two people have been killed by conservatives over immigration views. George Tiller was murdered at church over abortion. A tea partier was arrested trying to kill someone for having an Obama bumper sticker on their car. White powder was mailed to Rep. Weiner with a death threat over health care reform. A women went so far as to carve an "O" in her own face to try to pin a crime on Obama supporters. A man walked into a "liberal" church in Tennessee citing conservative literature and his hatred of liberals, killing 7 people with a shotgun. I could name many more.

Do you REALLY think its so crazy to believe someone might try to hurt her?

She confirms what I felt had happened. The GQ article and the woman never breathed the word "kidnapped" or "forced to do drugs." It was obvious that she knew them and played along with their prank, at least initially, and probably a bit reluctantly. But the blogosphere went nuts, with charges of and defenses against things the article didn't claim. And then Randy's denial, which was about as artful as Bill Clinton's. Instead of refuting the woman's claims, he refuted the blogosphere's hyperbolic claims! So he could truthfully say he'd never kidnapped anyone or forcibly drugged them - SINCE THESE THINGS WERE NEVER CLAIMED BY THE WOMAN.

rukidding: I'm looking for liberals who "defended" Paul BEFORE the woman, basically, recanted. That would be the earlier release of this information by the wapO. I'm not talking about this kind of defense: "Oh, he takes bong hits -- he's my kind of guy" (which is the category for most of the "defenses" above. I'm talking about "Regardless of your political leanings, it is an extremely dirty, low-down political trick to present these kind of EXTREMELY serious allegations by an anonymous person without a shred of evidence". That is, real defenses, not "snark", which seems to be a favorite of yours.

And I wouldn't be shocked if you made false claims about false rape claims in the past. You just tried to now. The woman did a follow up interview, to make sure that people were made aware that she never accused Rand Paul of kidnapping her, and your response is to smear her, by starting a false rumor about her.

This small saga goes to show that the mere threat of a libel lawsuit can indeed be effective. It was only yesterday that GQ was pooh poohing Paul's threat to sue, basically saying "bring it on". And here they are today, "clarifying" the story. Nice. That might help.

I imagine that the person who was most concerned about the libel suit threat was the anonymous woman. She probably was on the phone to GQ right away looking for assurances. It seems likely that at the least, her identity would be revealed in any lawsuit, and worse, she could become the target of a libel or slander suit itself. You see, the problem with her story is that apparently, there are a number of other witnesses.

Anyway, the game afoot now is identifying this mystery woman, and I'd say her chances of remaining anonymous are slim. Frankly, she should have known better in this day and age, but payback is a you know what. Get ready for your own 15 minutes, lady!

Looks like a libel case to me and the Post jumped the gun - Rand Paul can make a fortune on GQ magazine and the Washington Post. One would think that after the erroneousGeorge Bush stories the Post would check their facts first - they didn't and now they will pay for it

A publicity hound gets her name and wierd tale in the press and gets the world excited, only to deny her own words. Typical stunt for Tea Party types.

No rules for the mining industry? Did this guy smoke too many bongs of drugs? The only thing keeping miners alive are the rules that are on the books today. God help the miners if this guy ever has his way. This is one outsider that is outstanding in his field, maybe, and he should stay outside, in his field, standing alone.

pyellman: My first reaction to the 'story' is that it was gossip mongering and irresponsible journalism. That said, it is not my responsibility to defend a politician who wants to set back race relations 100 years, who would end Medicare, who opposed extending unemployment benefits, who opposed holding BP accountable, who opposed reforming the financial services and banking industry that took our economy to the brink of collapse, and who created his own medical board certification. Verifiable facts, each and every one of them. You decide.

The woman just told Greg the same story that was reported in the Magazine.

It was Rand Paul that tried to change the report, by claiming that he did not do something that the article never claimed he did.

He was the one who used the word kidnapping, just so he could deny it. He use that old set up a strawman ploy.

He did not deny any of the rest of the report. All he said was he did not remember it, and he thought he would have. Of course if he was high as a kite, then chances are he would not have remembered it.

"In our conversation, she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

In other words, she doesn't want to be identified and obviously will not comment on any "errors" in in your story. Here's my question: Did you add the Tea Party reference? I'm sorry if I question your credibility, but considering your past articles, I'm inclined to believe that you tweeked it for your political purposes.

You make my case better than I possibly could. First of all, this incident goes far beyond "gossip". Your characterization itself speaks volumes. To repudiate this kind of tactic is not to defend Ron Paul, but to declare that there should be a bottom level to which people, and the media -- especially the liberal media, which is the worst offender -- should not stoop. I'm sure you would not so easily stand by while similar attacks were made on someone who agreed with you on certain political issue. But because he is one of the "bad people" -- specifically, because he advocates political policies you disagree with --and you are one of the "good people" you are, if not willing to denounce it, at the very least happy to tolerate it. In short, anything is acceptable as long as your objectives are pure. That is exactly what I was talking about.

For the record, I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, although I do agree with some of the policies he advocates, including some of those above that you seem to consider things only a person of pure evil could agree with. I think he is a rather poor representative for the political philosophies and policies he advocates. What's interesting, and disgusting, to me, is the lengths to which liberals will go to slime people like Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. It has all the characteristics of a religious sect that would go to any lengths to crush what they feel is a blasphemer. You oppose extending unemployment benenfits!! Heartless blasphemer, you are hereby cast out of the human family!

I believe Keith Olbermann was part of Sigma Pi at Cornell. My freshman year at Cornell, the Sigma Pi pledges ran naked through my all-girl floor at Baker Hall. They also attached a live chicken to the hockey net at a the Harvard-Cornell Hockey game, causing great emotional and physical harm to the chicken.....

The Republicans tried to shoot down Clinton's run for President because he admitted to smoking pot in College (but did not inhale). Then they present the Electorate with a candidate (G.W. Bush) who had to admit that he HAD been a drug Addict and an alcoholic, then they had to use his brother in Florida and then the Supreme Court to get him illegally elected? What kind of BS is the Republican Party up to? I guess their next Candidate will be Gay, Striped like a Zebra and probably have alzenheimers Disease or just be another Drug Addict, Alcoholic, Moron like GWB who will get us into more useless unwinible wars just like he did. When are the Americans going to wake up and learn how to vote?

I smell a liberal in the house---my question to the Psychologist is "why Now" after all of these years she just had to get this off her chest---PLEEEEEZE-I am a Kentuckian---I can tell you the Liberals are running scared nd they will stop at nothing to try to bring Rand down. Rand has been in the news for better than a year---so again my question is "why now "-- and to say she fears the teaparty connection coming after her and doesn't want her name used????????again typical liberal blabbering----LOL

Oh,come on! I mean I think Paul is a doofus, but please, highjinks and bong hits while you are in college is hardly the stuff of scandal. Instead of focusing on non-stories like this, focus on the fact that his PRESENT POSITIONS are positively scary, not his stupidity at college. All that does is rally the stupid arm, also known as the base of the republican party. And he can play the victim of the liberal media. If stupidity during college were a disqualifier for public office, then there wouldn't be many Senators in the chamber.

you know, you really should correct your own wrong story if you are going to keep linking it to new ones,... the one saying Paul 'thinks government shouldn't regulate the mine industry' is false. He says the federal government has a role but he generally prefers rules to be at the local level where the people regulated and needing protection can better impact their shape.

"In our conversation, she elaborated that she doesn't want her name in print because she's a clinical psychologist who works with former members of the military, some of whom are Tea Partyers, and fears that complicating Paul's Senate run could put her in danger."

Oh, please. What a disgusting comment - suggesting that members of the military might harm her, as if military members of the Tea Party are going around hurting people.

The data that exist regarding Comrade Barry's continuing attempts to prohibit the release his long-form birth certificate (because something doesn't jibe with his self-told life story) have greater inferential credibility than does this tale about Rand Paul.

Yet the WaPo covers the Paul story in detail while choosing to ignore the other -- along with the many other huge temporal voids in Comrade Barry's story.

And there is NO bias at the WaPo?

I guess not if one is cheerleading for one and cheering against the other.

As much as you might enjoy throwing around anonymous condemnations, I'd rather stick to the facts, not overheated, emotional opinion. The facts, which are neither Democrat nor Republican, remain: Paul opposed extending unemployment benefits, he wants to eliminate Medicare, he wants to allow private businesses to discriminate, he opposes holding BP accountable. I defend your right to stand with Paul. However, nothing I said about Paul is untrue.

Astonishing that so-called "journalists" would waste this much time on a stupid college prank that doesn't sound very different from what went on at most fraternity houses.

How about checking to see if Obama ever had any fun in college? Or if he even really went?
No papers, no grades, no roommates, no friends, no part-time jobs, no prior addresses? How did he pay for Columbia and Harvard anyway?
Can't you spend your time more constructively? After all, since he's president, the stuff about Obama should be interesting for historians.

As much as you might enjoy throwing around anonymous condemnations, I'd rather stick to the facts, not overheated, emotional opinion. The facts, which are neither Democrat nor Republican, remain: Paul opposed extending unemployment benefits, he wants to eliminate Medicare, he wants to allow private businesses to discriminate, he opposes holding BP accountable. I defend your right to stand with Paul. However, nothing I said about Paul is untrue.

Posted by: rukidding1 | August 11, 2010 6:53 PM
==========================
Paul believes more of the regulation, laws, etc should be done at a state or local level and in some things not at all.

He believes (and I agree with this) that you can't change people's nature by making laws you just change their public behavior. People need to change themselves.

I would say although I don't agree with some of them the current broken federal government makes many valid arguments.

The more I hear about Rand Paul -- either the adult Paul running for office or the college-age Paul doing the goofy stuff that college kids do -- the more I like him. The US Senate can use more members like Rand Paul and fewer like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Tom Harkin.

So he didn't kidnap her. That certainly takes some of the edge off - though one has to wonder why, if there was nothing to this story, as the campaign claims, they didn't come right out and say so (they only said they were going to explore maybe a lawsuit, without offering any contrary statements or anything to shed light on what happened).

First of all it's just a very lame attempt to cast Rand Paul in a bad light. Secondly, if you think that Rand Paul does not have a chance in Novemeber, then you know nothing about the mood in the South!!

Oh jezus pleeze this is a cliffhanger did little randy abstain or did he snort sorree i mean shoot it? us illegals anglais is not too goed!!but one thing i havent figured out yet which one is the nuttier one daddy rand or babi rand???

Love it that liberals still want to try and bring down Paul after the sotry was clarified. Why are liberals on a witch hunt against conservatives. Just typical democrats, always trying to find reasons.

Let talk about all of the liberal activitst posing as Tea-Party supporters only to try and make claims that the party is racist. Just shows the limits liberals will go to! Stupid liberals!

Typically, conservative posters here use a snarling, nasty tone, misspell their words with apparent pride, and play the same old tired refrains over and over again... the conspiracy stuff, the birther garbage, the veiled racism, etc. They make no attempt to defend Rand Paul because they can't, instead casting aspersions on the psychologist who told GQ the story (which has NOT changed from its original version to this one), "liberals," and - incredibly - President Obama, who had and has nothing at all to do with this.

Listen up, cons - lose the hate, can't you? And make intelligent arguments for your positions that are sourced in commonly accepted fact. Do that, and we will listen respectfully. Juvenile name-calling and threats do not belong in a democratic political system.

2) You're making a fool of yourself trying to counter that truth. It's like saying that gravity doesn't exist, and that it's the wind that makes things fall and then blame it on gravity.

Posted by: jewishmother | August 11, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse
----
I suppose you're basing your racist claim on the unsubstantiated liberal media reports of the N-word calling and spitting. You could be basing it on the liberal press reporting that a racist carried an assault rifle to a tea party gathering. What that liberal media failed to mention or show in their coverage was later shown by others to be a black carrying the rifle. And I would ask who is "Everybody"? Where is your proof that everybody knows the tea party members are racist? As for "teabaggers", who are they? Your use of that term says much about yourself.

As for this non story about Rand Paul, its a result of the democratic party being so insecure in their campaigns for this November that they have asked people to look for dirt on republicans. However, it is journolist worthy garbage.

Last comment: What damage has tea party members done when they gather? What happens when liberal groups gather in their demonstrations?

There's something thoroughly absurd about this "exclusive report". If this woman - a clinical psychologist, no less - were truly worried about what might happen to her if her name became known because of the threat she represented to Rand Paul's Senate candidacy, would she have told the story at all? All Rand Paul or the other fellow involved (or one or another of her friends she presumably has told this tale to over the years) would have to do is mention her name and she would be outed. Why would she knowingly put herself in such jeopardy? (Whether she really would be in jeopardy is a different question.) Something doesn't add up here - or must we draw the conclusion that, although she is in a profession that presumably requires some degree of self-awareness from its practitioners, she acts in the same unselfreflective manner as most of us do, seeking her moment of fame, even if anonymously? I guess even clinical psychologists are not immune to such enticements.

It doesn't bother me a bit what people did when they were growing up! We live and learn. What bothers me is the moral high road the right claims. If you think you can work your way into heaven . . . your probably a Republican or these new conservative Libertarians. I'm still proud of my county and "I'm not a member of any organized political party".

I am a liberal and a member of the media and a personal friend of Rand Paul and his family. I am utterly appalled by this story, which GQ obviously dredged up to garner readership and national press exposure. Rand is a person of conviction and integrity who simply wants to serve the public and our country. He is not a politician, and yes, he is an idealist, and some of his ideals have been grossly misconstrued in a media feeding frenzy. Is there any wonder why we don't have more independent-minded candidates running for office? Who would willingly enter this maelstrom? I hope he wins, because anyone who could survive this personal attack has what it takes to make a difference in our country—and that's what we need.

Come on … Didn't a lot of us pull a similar college prank? Mine was the night we took a couple of pledges from our Northern Illinois Univ. fraternity, tied them up, blindfolded them and drove them all over northern Illinois. We eventually wound back to campus and left them loosely tied to a tree in a woods that was about a block from their dorm. Their reaction when they got untied was priceless.

This Rand Paul story is a whole lot of nothing. A question, though: What if the woman in this story were your wife, your daughter, your sister, or your niece? How would you feel then? Most people won't change their opinion of Paul based on this story, nor should they. It's too sketchy and subject to interpretation. What's not open to interpretation is Rand's publicly stated positions. To name a few: he wants to eliminate Medicare; he opposes holding BP accountable for the destruction it caused and the lives it destroyed; he thinks the coal mining industry should have fewer regulations; he believes private businesses should have the right to discriminate; he views as unneccessary laws that provide people with disabilities access to public and commercial buildings and facilities; he opposed new rules of the road for the banking and financial services industry that would protect taxpayers and consumers against reckless and irresponsible schemes, deal-making and lending; he would set back our nation's hard-fought progress in race relations by repealing portions of the Civil Rights Act; he opposed extending unemployment benefits to hundreds of thousands of families struggling to find jobs that are out work through no fault of their own. Do I think Rand is the devil incarnate or that he should be banished from civilized society? Not by a long shot. Heck, he might even be a fun guy to go to a ball game with. His views as someone running for public office, however, matter and are open to scrutiny. Facts are stubborn things, regardless of how much you question the messenger's motives.

@pyellman Wow nothing like sweeping gratuitous swipes at ENTIRE groups of people.
I made that mistake yesterday about R's...Kevin called me on it..and Kevin was right. Sweeping generalations rarely hold up.

"Look yourselves in the mirror, liberals,You are not the nice people you believe you are."

Damn all those people who have said I'm a nice guy must be full of manure eh?

Nothing like broad sweeping generalizations to make a point. NOT!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7
@rukidding7, That advice is so funny immediately following poperatzo's indictment of veterans and T.E.A. Party members. Are you going to give the same advice to poperatzo?

If Kentucky voters have any sense they'll send Jack Conway to Congress and send Ron Paul to the showers, where he can meditate on Aqua Budda for as long as he likes.

The Tea Party seems to think it will make thigns better for the country by making things worse, such as turning back the clock on Civil Rights, the minimum wage, and Social Security.

The financial doldrums we're currently in would look like a grade-school picnic compared to the state of the country after people like Ron Paul and Sharron Angle took over the U.S. Senate.
John Patrick Grace
Huntington, West Virginia

First of all, I just want to say, I'm from Kentucky(the first 'West', as in go West young man). Second, the Cheech and Chong movie sounds about right, as I'm RP's generation. The Aqua Buddha is probably a 'water bong' to smoke pot through. I've DONE it! and NO I do not have a record a mile long.It is much better to do than Maker's Mark or Jim Beam. And third, I get sooo tired of people saying "well what if it was your sister, niece, etc." You must say that for lack of anything intellectual to say. It was NOT a harmful thing. As I'm sure MOST of you have done this very same thing in a "playful" way, at some point in your life and just won't admit it. If not, I feel sorry for you, because you must be some sort of 'stuffed shirt' or jerk of some kind and do not know how to live.(relax,chill out). Stress can Kill ya.

Lots of wackos signed in here say they like Paul more now than before.

"Hoo-ha, what' a little hazing?"

Here in California, where most of us are smart enough to know how dumb the supporters of Paul are, we didn't take kindly to the frat boys who stuffed the raw piece of meat down a pledge's throat that choked him to death.

We didn't think much of the frat boys who forced a pledge to drink enough alcohol that it poisoned and killed him,

We didn't ramp up our appreciation of the sorority sisters who sent a young woman into the surf, where she drowned.

Rand "Who Me, Hazing?" Paul now won't man-up and admit he hazed a young woman, even as he denies a kidnapping charge never made in the article that blew the whistle on a man who demonstrably is still too immature to act as an adult.

Paul doesn't think the mining industry needs regulating now, so it's not difficult to understand why his conscience wasn't bothered by the hazing he undertook long ago; or perhaps, along with a lack of memory, he just doesn't have much of a conscience, social or otherwise.

At least we here in California are smart enough to know how dumb Paul fanboys are.

We in the Tarnished State didn't take kindly to the frat boys who stuffed a piece of meat down a pledge's throat that choked him to death.

We didn't like the frat brothers who induced a student to drink enough alcohol that it killed him.

And we weren't happy about the sorority sisters who sent two young women into the surf to drown.

None of those students were, of course, forced to do anything. Their "friends" didn't kidnap them, didn't stuff a piece of raw liver down anyone's throat, didn't pour whiskey down anyone's throat, didn't throw two women into the ocean.

And Paul didn't force anyone to do anything, either. But he did haze a young woman, and now he's not man-enough to admit it, instead denying a charge never leveled at him in the original article that blew the lid off his immature hijinks.

Just as hazing was nothing to worry about when Paul was a student, so to him accidents in the mining workplace are nothing to worry about, either.

Yet his defenders, who on this post think there's nothing wrong with hazing, are legion.

At least in California we don't have any candidates the likes of Paul. Oh, wait, we have Meg Whitman, who assaulted an employee and paid out $200,000 in a settlement. Or, as Ms. Whitless put it, the woman she assaulted "and i and I had a professional disagreement."

Hooray to these brave candidates who are exposing themselves to the scurrilous, baseless, ludicrous, vicious attacks from the leftists. Just keep them coming and we will replay in election ads to demonstrate how unhinged the left is.

Sargent advances this story some by. getting the counselor to clarify what the whole incident was about. But then he, like the other journalists, tries to twist what she said into an indictment of Rand, of course -- being the good liberal that he is.

First we hear that an anonymous woman claims that Rand Paul kidnapped her and forced her to take drugs. A reputable paper might be a bit cautious about accusing someone of such a serious charge based on anonymous accusations. But apparently your paper isn't all that reputable. Next we hear that the anonymous woman has "clarified" her story. But it seems that the clarification was that he didn't kidnap her or force her to do anything. Maybe a better title for this article would be; "Rand Paul exonerated. Story of kidnaping was pure bull----."

Then you might think about apologizing to Rand Paul before he sues you and your fleabag paper.

If there was a place to nominate this for non-story of the year, I'd like to know. This is obviously the MSM's way of attacking "racist" tea-partier Rand Paul for daring to challenge the status quo. Not that they're running for office anymore, but it's interesting how much less traction the much more serious charges against Bill Clinton and Al Gore got. http://tinyurl.com/33khrh3

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.